Just as 1984 can be thought of as a warning and not a blueprint, so too should it be thought of as an illustration and not a documentary. Just because the exact manifestation of the Orwellian tendencies in the UK aren't what we see in Orwell's book does not mean that these things aren't happening.

Everyone knows about the CCTV, not many people know that you're now teaching the cameras to listen to us as well. (http://is.gd/6k88) Or how about the fact that Jack Straw wants to let anonymous people testify against you? (http://is.gd/6k8P) Your police want the DNA of children who might be pose dangers in the future. (http://is.gd/2cW) You're talking about tracking all of our calls and email (http://is.gd/1Pfo).

So you photograph us, keep our DNA, are listening in on our conversations and all in the name of "terrorism". Frankly, many people are more afraid of the government than terrorists.

And just getting back to the CCTV problem, not only do the police admit it doesn't work (http://is.gd/1b1a), but the Home Office admits it, too (http://is.gd/6k9O). So how can you stand there and tell me with a straight face that you support the blatant rape of our civil liberties? You should be ashamed of yourself, but then, I think you've just made it clear that you don't give a damn about us.

(I could have listed plenty of other links besides the ones above, but I felt that was a good start)

I saw Dr. Strangelove last night. It was great, but incredibly frustrating that nothing has changed in 40 years with respect to Cold War mentality. I suppose that's the incredibly stifling thing about reading 1984; it is true to this day and was a big, fat warning. Yet the UK keeps working toward it.

not a reply as such

Anybody with even an ounce of understanding of risk, probability, etc knows that the dangers of terrorism are almost negligable - also were and are a rather large sample of people at the time who stood up to say so - anybody else remember the We are not afraid website and the gazillions of people who posted messages after 7/7.

Don't worry about him. It's not like he understands basic English, anyway. You said "many people are more afraid of the government than they are of terrorists", not "MOST people" -- so all you need to provide is evidence that your own friends are, in fact, more afraid of the government than of terrorists, and that you have many friends. Anecdotal evidence is absolutely fine, in this instance.

Except that, strictly speaking, this falls under the category of what journalists refer to as "weasel words". I think he does have a point. It's not much of a point since he quite failed to address anything substantive, but it's a point nonetheless.